I had been waiting for the right opportunity to present a "pre-millennial" study and as the doubter--Dedication, has opened this door, let us look at it.

Dedication says, "Well, at least you have now shown the texts as to why you believe in the establishment of the 'temporal kingdom" in Jerusalem. But you do realize these are also the texts the dispensationalists use for their millennial Jerusalem kingdom.

So the subject is not new, for it has been dealt with even years before Houteff tried to bring it into Adventism.The very foundation of the Millerite Advent movement was in direct opposition to such interpretation of the scripture."

First, this is not nearly "all the texts" that show from the WORD of GOD what He will do in the very last days--pre-millennially.

Second, we as SDA firmly know that the Millerite movement was undoubtedly wrong in it's stance on the 1844 date of Christ's coming, so it would be no surprise that it was wrong again on understanding the pre-med phase of His kingdom.

But let's measure this understanding FIRST from the Holy Scriptures and see what His WORD contains. People like Dedication like to use our beloved prophetess Ellen White's writings to overrule Scripture when we are counselled to measure them to the Scriptures. One is to be prominent(Bible) and the other is to secondarily support it (EGW).NOT the Bible is to support EGW. This is very important to firmly get into our mind for understanding CORRECTLY God's WORD.

To be continued shortly--

In "The Great Controversy" page 322-323, we read, "not until the personal advent of Christ can His people receive the kingdom..But when Jesus comes, He confers immortality upon His people; and then He calls them to inherit the kingdom of which they have hitherto been only heirs."

Does this mean undoubtedly and conclusively that the Scriptures do not point to an pre-millenial kingdom? Let us look at the whole subject as SOP counsels us--

"He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence." (Testimonies, vol. 3, p.255)

"Men, women, and youth, God requires to possess moral courage, steadiness of purpose, fortitude and perseverance, minds that cannot take the assertions of another, but which will investigate for themselves before receiving or rejecting, that will study and weigh evidence, to take it to the Lord in prayer. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (Testimonies vol. 2, p.130)

Report (Part 1 of 2)

Although the doctrine of the Kingdom may not appear quite so complete under the lens of Sister White’s writings as under the lens of the Rod, one dare not thus superficially reject either, but must the more studiously compare both views of the doctrine under the super-lens of the Bible.

He must keep in mind that we are not given license to harmonize the Bible with any other writings, but are charged to measure all others by It.

First of all, in order to do justice to the Scriptures, to Sister White’s writings, and to the Rod the position of each on the subject must be viewed in the light of the Scriptures, which incontrovertibly teach that the Promised Land will be reinhabited by the Lord’s own converted people. (See Isaiah 2; Micah 4; Ezekiel 36, 37; Jeremiah 31-33).

As to Sister White’s statement in The Great Controversy, she is there speaking of the Kingdom complete, after the dead are raised, at the time the saints receive it.

This was the only phase of the subject-the consummate phase that Providence had made known when she wrote. Now as the scroll of prophetic Truth has unrolled further since her day, the Kingdom in reality is seen to have an intermediate, Davidian phase, as well as the final one heretofore known.

(I realize this is quite new to many but stay with us here)

Besides the prophecies relating to the literal---the Davidian---Kingdom, the Bible contains many other prophetic subjects which the writings of Sister White do not even mention, let alone treat of. And if the Lord does not now reveal them to the church to meet her need today, she will not be prepared for their fulfillment, but will be left to perish in her undone Laodicean condition.

These prophecies must therefore be revealed in order to strengthen the church in her final warfare. Otherwise, for what purpose were they written?

No prophet of God has ever forged a complete prophetic chain of events, with no links missing. It has taken many inspired writers to complete the long chain of prophecy. The mind, therefore, which takes the position that Sister White has done what no prophet in or out of the Bible has ever done, does so at the utter disregard of actual Biblical procedure and also of revealed Truth.

She herself says that “no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the Divine purpose in the work for his own time. Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name.”-The Great Controversy, p. 343.

Some persons, being of the parrot kind, utter parrot-like statements, never stopping to think what they say, and seemingly never caring whether their statements stand or fall. Such are they who say that no other event or events can come before, between, or after those set forth in Sister White’s writings.

Should one insist that the continuity of events recorded in Early Writings, pp. 15-17, must be taken as absolute, and that no other event or events can be sandwiched in, then he is getting himself into deep water, for the pages mentioned in no wise even intimate either the seven last plagues or the millennium!

Again: the Jews rejected the Lord because not all of what the prophets taught and wrote was found in the teachings of Moses. “We know,” they said, “that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence He is.” John 9:29.

As no prophet’s writings ever predicted the entire Truth needed by the church to carry her clear through to the Kingdom, and as other prophets followed, either enlarging upon or adding to the prophecies already recorded in the Scriptures, then for anyone to turn down the good tidings of the Kingdom on the grounds that this phase of the Kingdom is not found in Sister White’s writings, is for him to take the same inexcusable and fatal stand as did the Jews.

It is to say, “I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” Rev. 3:17. It is this attitude that compels God to spue out of His mouth the lukewarm, satisfied Laodiceans.

The eleventh-hour message has been timed and designed to reveal the Davidian Kingdom rising a new before the appearing of Christ in the clouds. Having no direct light, however on this phase of the Kingdom, The Great Controversy could no more have expressed itself in the definite terms which the message today uses, than could William Miller have expressed himself on the subject of the cleansing of the sanctuary, in such terms as we read in The Great Controversy.

Of necessity, any statements relative to a subject which is still out of sight in the unfolding of the Scroll, are made only in incidental terms of truth as it is at the time seen or commonly understood.

And if the common understanding of these incidental statements be wrong, the writer cannot be held responsible for that which he has borrowed from others or seen but very dimly and therefore expressed very indefinitely.

For example, in Christ’s day “the doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection was held by many of those who were listening to Christ’s words. The Saviour knew of their ideas, and He framed his parable so as to inculcate important truths through these preconceived opinions.

He held up before His hearers a mirror wherein they might see themselves in their true relation to God. He used the prevailing opinion to convey the idea He wished to make prominent to all....”---Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 263.

(To be continued in part 2)

Its rather revealing that before the study comes a disclaimer that EGW was given the end time picture. Interesting how first comes the message not to regard EGW's writings pertaining to this subject, but "just the bible" yet GLL gives us Houteff.

Now, I know Houteff has a totally different picture of the endtimes then what EGW presents -- one that is far more to the liking of the human nature.

In short that end time message is -- Adventists who oppose this doctrine, all must die, then through supernatural openings that will open up the middle east, move to Jerusalem and enjoy a wonderful kingdom of peace and safety, from which to send out the message, and to which the world comes to honor it's residents and learn more of their beliefs, it is only those who don't get to Jerusalem in time who will suffer persecution -- all this is to happen before Christ comes.

The Shepherd's Rod people have been taught by Houteff that an antitypical David is going to rule over them in this grand kingdom. This "David", in their belief, is not Jesus Christ as they say the Rod is not Jesus, Jesus is the Branch. Mr. Houteff illustrates it by means Of a drawing of a tree, concerning which he says: "Jesse (the father of David), the rod (David), and the Branch (Christ). The relationship shows that David (the rod) is not Christ (the Branch) . . "-Mount Sion at "the Eleventh Hour" (1941), p45.

So they are looking for a "human" king to rule visibly, while they say Christ rules "invisible" -- basically they are aiming to set up a theocratic type of kingdom in which a human will rule. NOTE: that is uniting church and state!

Yes, they do draw on many OT prophecies made to Israel showing what their nation would have been like had they fully accepted and followed God's covenant and accepted Christ as the Messiah.

Revelation makes it plain that the nations of the world will not be flocking to Jerusalem to find the truth.
It makes it plain they will be following the beast and His image.

Yes, I fully believe there will be supernatural things happening that will create a kingdom in old Jerusalem.
The whole world is being set up for it. Satan's aim is to establish a kingdom where he is worshipped as the true god.
We are told "spiritualism" will be increased -- people who have died will "appear" and urge their followers to come to this kingdom for from it peace will spread to the world.

There are Shepherd's Rod followers that think Houteff will be resurrected as the antitypical David to establish the temporal kingdom (whether GGL believes that or not I don't know) But it doesn't take a lot of wisdom to realize a demon pretending to be Houteff even if he doesn't take the position of David could be a very deceptive devise for those who follow those teachings.

Anyway --
My warning is to stay clear of any kingdom in present day Palestine

Ded-- "Its rather revealing that before the study comes a disclaimer that EGW was given the end time picture."

First we notice that she either knowingly or unknowingly mis-states her first point. The disclaimer is that EGW was "NOT" given the end time picture.

Next we see her classic twistings which are many--

Ded-- "interesting how first comes the message not to regard EGW's writings pertaining to this subject, but "just the bible" yet GLL gives us Houteff.

The first report in no way shape or form asks people to "dis-regard" EGW writings concerning the kingdom. Rather is specifically points out how the Scriptures make plain our subject (pre-mil kingdom) and as such we dare not insert EGW's writings before them to counterdict them.

Ded- "In short that end time message is -- Adventists who oppose this doctrine, all must die, then through supernatural openings that will open up the middle east, move to Jerusalem and enjoy a wonderful kingdom of peace and safety, from which to send out the message, and to which the world comes to honor it's residents and learn more of their beliefs, it is only those who don't get to Jerusalem in time who will suffer persecution -- all this is to happen before Christ comes."

Let's wait and see what the report is about before you jump ahead as you like to do whenever a study is done with brother Houteff.

Ded-- "..basically they are aiming to set up a theocratic type of kingdom in which a human will rule. NOTE: that is uniting church and state!"

How foolish is this statement! NO where in all the Rod does It point to a such a joining of the two! Again she is always ready to pull rabbits out of hats to make her delusional points. Notice no SRod refs to back up this wild claim. Only innuendos.

This is classic Dedication. For example, we clearly showed her in a previous thread that she was slandering brother Houteff by implying that he was responsible for the 1959 fiasco known in Waco as the failed prediction of Ezekiel 9, which drew thousands there only to find out they had lost most everything.

She bears false witness and yet no apology(See Commandment no.9). Inspiration has some pointed testimony for this-

"I have been shown that the greatest reason why the people of God are now found in this state of spiritual blindness is that they will not receive correction." (Test. vol.3, p.255)

Ded--"Yes, they do draw on many OT prophecies made to Israel showing what their nation would have been like had they fully accepted and followed God's covenant and accepted Christ as the Messiah."

Again--false. The report in no way points to conditional promises, which she implies. Carefully look at the report coming and see what the word of God says. Take notice (both in the statement and before and after) whether there are conditions made. In other words, things such as "IF" "POSSIBLY" "MAYBE" or such.

Conditional promises in the Scriptures ( which there were many) ALWAYS have a --"IF" you do this, I will do that. But look at the upcoming references yourself.

Ded-- "Revelation makes it plain that the nations of the world will not be flocking to Jerusalem to find the truth.
It makes it plain they will be following the beast and His image."


False. We will show this is not true. For just one Scripture that negates what she says let us read this prophecy to come--

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:2-3)

When is this to happen? LAST DAYS. Who are they describing? the Jews there now or God's future elect (converted)? Where do they go to get the "law"?

Let no one twist His word, my brothers and sisters, God is not mocked. Be not like those who joined Korah and denied the word from His prophet. The same end will come upon those who deny His word. Oh what unbelief!

Ded--"Yes, I fully believe there will be supernatural things happening that will create a kingdom in old Jerusalem.
The whole world is being set up for it. Satan's aim is to establish a kingdom where he is worshipped as the true god.

We are told "spiritualism" will be increased -- people who have died will "appear" and urge their followers to come to this kingdom for from it peace will spread to the world."

Notice not ONE word of Inspiration is used as her guidance for the Satan kingdom to be set up in Israel. Private words and interpretation ONLY. Show us one Inspired reference that shows Satan will set up a kingdom in Israel. We know that some mis-guided protestants believe this, but I did not know that a SDA buys this baloney also!

Ded-- "There are Shepherd's Rod followers that think Houteff will be resurrected as the antitypical David to establish the temporal kingdom (whether GGL believes that or not I don't know) But it doesn't take a lot of wisdom to realize a demon pretending to be Houteff even if he doesn't take the position of David could be a very deceptive devise for those who follow those teachings."

I do not have enough light in this area to say about VTH. But I can say the we are told by EGW that faitful SDA's will arise to "take up the work once more".

"As the third angel's message swells into a loud cry, great power and glory will attend its proclamation. The faces of God's people will shine with the light of heaven...Let every soldier of the cross push to the front, not in self-sufficiency, but in meekness and lowliness, and with firm faith in God. Your work, my work, will not cease with this life. For a little while we may rest in the grave, but, when the call comes, we shall, in the kingdom of God, take up our work once more." (Testimonies, vol. 7, p.17)

I am sure DED will twist the above to mean working in heaven. But in 'context" that cannot be. it is under the sub-heading "An ever-widening work" that is to be done here on earth.

Ded- "My warning is to stay clear of any kingdom in present day Palestine"

Who are you to warn the people not to investigate this light? If they do then THEY shall decide. let us read a perfect Scripture for her--

"ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52)

I didn’t misstate anything there. In your posts you have said EGW was not given the full end time picture, she omitted what Houteff presents as the grand kingdom. Thus in order to present Houteff, you must first make the disclaimer that EGW was given the end time picture.

I know EGW plainly tells us there will be NO kingdom in old Jerusalem.

“Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. Such a view is calculated to take the mind and interest from the present work of the Lord, under the message of the third angel; for those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there. I saw that such a mission would accomplish no real good, that it would take a long while to make a very few of the Jews believe even in the first advent of Christ, much more to believe in His second advent. I saw that Satan had greatly deceived some in this thing and that souls all around them in this land could be helped by them and led to keep the commandments of God, but they were leaving them to perish. I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord.” EW p. 75



So, you agree – this is a Houteff study, not a study of scripture. It is a study of Houteff’s interpretation of scripture. It is not a study of scripture that takes passages in context of their setting, or compares them to the New Testament. It is a study of Houteff’s interpretations.


Foolish? Do you really think so? If you think that is foolish, I’m afraid you are sorely deceived and I pray your eyes will be opened before it is too late.

It is not I that is bearing “false witness” – I am speaking the truth.

Houteff is presenting a KINGDOM and a KING that is to be established in present day Jerusalem.

As I wrote previously:
“The Shepherd's Rod people have been taught by Houteff that an antitypical David is going to rule over them in this grand kingdom. This "David", in their belief, is not Jesus Christ as they say the Rod is not Jesus, Jesus is the Branch. Mr. Houteff illustrates it by means Of a drawing of a tree, concerning which he says: "Jesse (the father of David), the rod (David), and the Branch (Christ). The relationship shows that David (the rod) is not Christ (the Branch) . . "-Mount Sion at "the Eleventh Hour" (1941), p45.

So they are looking for a "human" king to rule visibly, while they say Christ rules "invisible" -- basically they are aiming to set up a theocratic type of kingdom in which a human will rule. NOTE: that is uniting church and state!

And please notice -- in the two paragraphs I wrote in my last post,
I did refer to Houteff’s writings. (That is tract eight if you need the tract #)

It is not I that am presenting “delusions” I am telling you the truth.

It is Houteff that twists scripture – I wish you could see that.

He manages to get humans in the place of Christ in several of his interpretations.

From the same tract #8 Houteff writes:
“Observe that in the message which they "sent after Him," his servants did not say, "We will not have You to reign over us," but rather, "we will not have this man to reign over us." What they objected to was Christ's reigning over them through someone else. Clearly, then, before He is coronated, and prior to His return to reckon with His servants, He appoints a "man" to reign over them in His stead. Whereupon they say to Him, by their attitude and stand toward His message, "We will not have this man to reign over us," although "this man," as we now see, is the antitypical David (the "simple means"), the visible king. "-Mount Sion at "the Eleventh Hour" P. 70

He is plainly using Christ's parable about HIMSELF, and turning it into trying to prove a human person, a man – a human who supposedly is an antitypical David will reign in the kingdom over people. A visible human king, and Christ the invisible king.

He is plainly talking about a king, a kingdom, reigning, a throne etc. etc.
And yes, that is uniting church and state -- a theocracy.

It comes from Houteff’s own words: -- again from tract#8
“as the descendants of Jacob, again becoming a kingdom, appoint to themselves one head (Hos. 1:11), "David their king" (Hos. 3:5), "and seek the Lord their God," it is evident that the church in the time of the Loud Cry of the Third Angel's Message, Will Be A Theocracy. "-Mount Sion at "the Eleventh Hour" p. 42

That is what Houteff teaches, so please don't try to tell people it isn't true.

Ded-I know EGW plainly tells us there will be NO kingdom in old Jerusalem.

Apparently one of my points was missed by Dedication. FIRST and foremost—SCRIPTURE is what we read first regarding our subject. Whether EGW was given this light or not we can then discover by comparing it to Scripture. Time and again she compares Scripture to EGW—Wrong!

I've already made this statement which she has glossed over and ignored--

“But let's measure this understanding FIRST from the Holy Scriptures and see what His WORD contains. People like Dedication like to use our beloved prophetess Ellen White's writings to overrule Scripture when we are counseled to measure them to the Scriptures. One is to be prominent(Bible) and the other is to secondarily support it (EGW).NOT the Bible is to support EGW. This is very important to firmly get into our mind for understanding CORRECTLY God's WORD.”

So what does she do? She begins her criticizm by pointing out first and foremost what EGW says—no kingdom. Instead of waiting to see what God's words says FIRST. The Jews did this SAME procedure! They quoted and believed in Moses first ahead of anything Christ said.

If they had waited to take pains to know what Christ had said, then they would have gone back and seen how Moses' writings fit the word of Christ.But that would have required humility , which proved there downfall.

TO REPEAT-- Bible First—EGW second.

“Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. Such a view is calculated to take the mind and interest from the present work of the Lord, under the message of the third angel; for those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there. I saw that such a mission would accomplish no real good, that it would take a long while to make a very few of the Jews believe even in the first advent of Christ, much more to believe in His second advent. I saw that Satan had greatly deceived some in this thing and that souls all around them in this land could be helped by them and led to keep the commandments of God, but they were leaving them to perish.

I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord.” EW p. 75

Someone already beat her in this specific attempt to use this to dis-prove the pre-mil teachings --

Question No. 43:

How do you reconcile "The Shepherd's Rod" teaching that the Davidian Kingdom is again to be set up in Palestine, with "Early Writings," pp. 75 ,76: "Old Jerusalem never would be built up"?

Answer:

The context of the Early Writings' statement reveals that it refers to the Jewish Zionist Movement, and it shows that the Movement's avowed purpose to re-establish a national Jewish Homeland, centered in Jerusalem proper, will never be realized that never will Old Jerusalem be rebuilt in accordance with the Zionist interpretation, and never will the non-Christian Jews be the subjects of the Kingdom. (See Tract No. 8, Mount Sion at the Eleventh Hour.)

At this point we'd like to point out something important--Please take notice-- She conveniently ignores Truth that she cannot escape from. Notice she made no attempt to address the following--

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2-3)

When is this to happen? LAST DAYS. Who are they describing? the Jews there now or God's future elect (converted)? Where do they go to get the "law"?

Is the above reference one of God's empty promises? Will it return void to the King of the universe?—ask yourselves these important questions.

Ded-So, you agree – this is a Houteff study, not a study of scripture. It is a study of Houteff’s interpretation of scripture. It is not a study of scripture that takes passages in context of their setting, or compares them to the New Testament. It is a study of Houteff’s interpretations.

Of course I make no attempt to hide anything that is written by VTH. His reports have shown great light and as such I am showing what they contain. But be aware that inside his reports are Scriptures that say clear unchangeable things that you cannot twist.

Dedication wants to say this pre-mil idea is Houteff's but we'll see what the 2nd report brings. Honest truth seekers will be “guided into all truth” (John 16:13) if, unlike Dedication, they humble themselves and read the “Thus sayeth the Lord.”

Ded-It is not I that is bearing “false witness” – I am speaking the truth.

I'm afraid your truth and THE TRUTH are two different things. For instance we notice your often taking out of context what the Scriptures, EGW and even myself say. If you will honestly recall I said you bore false witness by implicating Houteff in the 1959 Waco fiasco. I proved to you that VTH was in no way associated with that—Yet you ignored this truth and never apologized. That is –bearing false witness AGAINST your neighbor WITHOUT repentance.

Ded-So they are looking for a "human" king to rule visibly, while they say Christ rules "invisible" -- basically they are aiming to set up a theocratic type of kingdom in which a human will rule. NOTE: that is uniting church and state!

Follow this carefully-- The Word of GOD declares that a future kingdom , and that is a RELIGIOUS one not a WORLDLY one as we know it, is to be set up in Israel. But it does NOT, I repeat NOT join up with any local or country government. But we are getting ahead of the report, so let's see what it says.

Ded-He is plainly using Christ's parable about HIMSELF, and turning it into trying to prove a human person, a man – a human who supposedly is an antitypical David will reign in the kingdom over people. A visible human king, and Christ the invisible king.

You are trying to discuss two areas of this subject at once 1) the identity of the future king to be set up in Israel 2) whether there will be a Theocracy in Israel in the end times.

Our report is focusing on number 2 for now, let's prove that case first then we can discuss “who” if any is identified as the ruler.

Ded-It comes from Houteff’s own words: -- again from tract#8
“as the descendants of Jacob, again becoming a kingdom, appoint to themselves one head (Hos. 1:11), "David their king" (Hos. 3:5), "and seek the Lord their God," it is evident that the church in the time of the Loud Cry of the Third Angel's Message, Will Be A Theocracy. "-Mount Sion at "the Eleventh Hour" p. 42

Instead of purposeful isolation and skewed analysis given by Dedication here, look at the full report in Tract 8 for yourself. Tract 8

Also take note-- She ignored another request --

"Show us one Inspired reference that shows Satan will set up a kingdom in Israel". She likes to, as I have pointed many times, make points and statements from a pure private interpretation standpoint.This is VERY important to know, if Satan will set up a kingdom in Israel in last days. So let's back that up!!

Ded-That is what Houteff teaches, so please don't try to tell people it isn't true.

Let's see if the report tries to exalt a man (Houteff) or Bible Truth.


Some applicable quotes --

“We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said.” (Test. To Min. p.105)

“Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error, other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth.” (Ibid. p.105)

“Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment. Yet, when a view of Scripture is presented, many do not ask, Is it true--in harmony with God's word? but, By whom is it advocated? and unless it comes through the very channel that pleases them, they do not accept it.

So thoroughly satisfied are they with their own ideas that they will not examine the Scripture evidence with a desire to learn, but refuse to be interested, merely because of their prejudices.(Ibid, p.106)

“Suppose a brother held a view that differed from yours, and he should come to you, proposing that you sit down with him and make an investigation of that point in the Scriptures; should you rise up, filled with prejudice, and condemn his ideas, while refusing to give him a candid hearing? The only right way would be to sit down as Christians and investigate the position presented in the light of God's word, which will reveal truth and unmask error.

To ridicule his ideas would not weaken his position in the least if it were false, or strengthen your position if it were true. If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation,it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of Pharisaism cherished among us.” (Ibid, p.107)

Can Dedicaton explain what the following means? Did it ever occur to her that this “Rod” might speak? What Rod in our SDA history has spoken? Does the Lord appoint it or not?

Hear ye the rod and Who has appointed it? (Micah 6:9)

ADDRESSING EGW ISSUES RAISED

Originally Posted By: Godsloveandlaw

Ded-I know EGW plainly tells us there will be NO kingdom in old Jerusalem.

Apparently one of my points was missed by Dedication. FIRST and foremost—SCRIPTURE is what we read first regarding our subject. Time and again she compares Scripture to EGW

And my point was that first you must push EGW aside so you can present Houteff's interpretations. For time and time again, continually, you base everything on HOUTEFF.

You even end your posts implying that the Biblical use of the word "rod" somehow refers to Houteff's interpretations and place him on par as the scriptures.

On another thread you placed him as the sole authority on interpreting scripture --

Originally Posted By: GLL

One is to be prominent(Bible) and the other is to secondarily support it (EGW).NOT the Bible is to support EGW. This is very important to firmly get into our mind for understanding CORRECTLY God's WORD.”

So why are all your posts HOUTEFF's interpretation of the Bible?

Originally Posted By: GLL

Instead of waiting to see what God's words says FIRST. The Jews did this SAME procedure! They quoted and believed in Moses first ahead of anything Christ said.

Ah-- yes -- and Houteff is following the same procedure as the Jews, quoting the prophets who wrote more than six centuries before Christ, and not basing it on what the NEW Testament says.

Originally Posted By: GLL

Originally Posted By: EGW

I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord.” EW p. 75

Someone already beat her in this specific attempt to use this to dis-prove the pre-mil teachings --

Question No. 43:

How do you reconcile "The Shepherd's Rod" teaching that the Davidian Kingdom is again to be set up in Palestine, with "Early Writings," pp. 75 ,76: "Old Jerusalem never would be built up"?

Answer:

The context of the Early Writings' statement reveals that it refers to the Jewish Zionist Movement, and it shows that the Movement's avowed purpose to re-establish a national Jewish Homeland, centered in Jerusalem proper, will never be realized that never will Old Jerusalem be rebuilt in accordance with the Zionist interpretation, and never will the non-Christian Jews be the subjects of the Kingdom. (See Tract No. 8, Mount Sion at the Eleventh Hour.)

I've read Houteff's rebuttal before. However, there are two points that show it doesn't answer the question.
1. There is absolutely no mention of a "Zionist movement" nor is there a reference to the Jews needing to go to Jerusalem in her remarks.
2. A national homeland for the Jewish people has been established in Palestine.

Both prove she was NOT speaking of the Zionist movement, or about a call to Jewish people to go to Jerusalem, but rather she is talking about the aims of some of the ADVENTIST people who thought they needed to go over to Jerusalem, convert the Jews living there and establish something. And knowing the missionary mindedness of Adventists they were not against sending missionaries either, so it couldn't be that either. This was a heresy (their word) after the similitude of Houteff, teaching that the Advent people had to go to old Jerusalem.

James White wrote in the Review Oct. 7, 1851 addressing the same situation EGW was addressing;
He wrote while reporting on a meeting of the brethren:

"The Holy Spirit was gloriously poured out, and all were blest, strengthened, and cheered on their way to the Golden City, the Heavenly Jerusalem. The distracting, unprofitable views relative to Old Jerusalem and the Jews, &c., that are afloat at the present time, were not mentioned during the meeting.
No one present, to our knowledge, has anything to do with
them. The Jerusalem "above" and "free," is that which
interests us. On that we dwell with pleasure, unity of sentiments, and profit. " Blessed," says the True Witness,
Jesus, " are they that do his (the Father's ten commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the City." Rev, xxii, 14.
We wish here to state that we as a people have no confidence
in the strange notions, that some have run into, that
the saints have yet to go to Old Jerusalem, &c., &c. Brethren beware of such heresies."


[b]ADDRESSING KINGDOM ISSUES



The important point may be your utter impatience and arrogance.

Indeed I started to answer, but put it aside to enjoy the Sabbath day in worship and fellowship with other believers.

Also notice the shift GLL takes in his response to my first statement:

Did he negate what I said, that REVELATION makes it plain that the nations of the world will not be flocking to old Jerusalem to find the truth?
That Revelation makes it plain they will be following the beast and His image.

He wasn't quoting from Revelation, he is quoting from Isaiah who wrote before the first destruction of Jerusalem and was presenting what God wanted Jerusalem to be when the Messiah came to them.

The words last days = don’t necessarily mean our time, they simply mean “last days”.

Hebrews 1:1,2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.

So it can also refer to the “last days” of a period of time -- like the allotted 490 years given to the nation to prepare for the coming Messiah.

Indeed if in the last days of the 490 years, when the Son of God was walking on the dusty roads of Palestine, and confirming the covenant with the Jewish people, had the nation accepted Christ as their Messiah, they would have been a light to the world to all nations.

But in spite of the national rejection of Christ, the LORD’S word did go forth from Jerusalem to all the world, as the followers of Christ (Jewish men and women) went forth carrying the gospel.

And the prophecy will be fulfilled again in completeness, when the NEW Jerusalem comes down from heaven, and all the saved nations will go to that great city to worship and learn more about God.

As Revelation points out concerning the NEW Jerusalem --

Rev. 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
21:26 "And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it."



The focus of some kind of righteous kingdom in old Jerusalem prior to God making all things new, is not Houteff's idea -- it's been around long before Houteff came on the scene.

Variations of it were there in EGW's time, it's nothing new. Houteff just tailored it to deceive Adventists.





As far as the disastrous results of people who have accepted Houteff's teachings -- you have NOT proved at all that his teachings had nothing to do with it.
I said Florence set the date after V. Houteff died, it was not Houteff who set the date. And you can only prove that Florence set the date, not Houteff, which I said from the beginning.
There is absolutely no false witness there.

You weren't there when Houteff and his wife discussed prophecies together. It's only your word against others who were there. You have chosen to slander Florence to vindicate V.Houteff, that's your problem, not mine. At least she saw the light of the errors into which she was indoctrinated and realized where those beliefs were leading her.




It matters not that it isn't joining a local government. Their aim is to set up a KINGDOM in which rulership and religion is merged. That is a combination of state and religion.
They don't plan on joining a local government they plan to BE the local government. What do you think a kingdom and a king does? A king that rules on throne.



It is one and the same subject.
Houteff plainly says the antypical David is not Christ, that he is the visible king, while Christ is the invisible king and that this is a theocracy.



You are following the counsel that other Shepherd Rod people were given.
They KNOW there is a problem with this set up that just does NOT mesh with truth, so the idea is -- first indoctrinate the people on the kingdom idea, then introduce this king to them.

Sort of like putting blinders on the people so they can't see where they are going.

And indeed Satan will set up a counterfeit kingdom -- it's a whole study in itself.

Just a note on the conditions behind EGW's comment in Early Writings page 75.
In studying further as to just what was being circulated in 1851 concerning Jerusalem, that EGW and her husband wrote against -- it was called the "age to come", and was promoted (not by the small group of Sabbath keeping Adventists) but by some of their former associates in the Millerite movement (also called Adventists) They had a paper called, "Advent Harbinger". This particular message was urging Adventists to go to Jerusalem to start tilling the soil to bring life to the "land" and converting Jews, all in preparation to have a "remnant" gathered there to welcome the returning Messiah to His capital, preparatory to the complete restoration and a millennial kingdom centered in "old" Jerusalem.

(Too tired to write more tonight -- later)

Ded- And my point was that first you must push EGW aside so you can present Houteff's interpretations. For time and time again, continually, you base everything on HOUTEFF.

You even end your posts implying that the Biblical use of the word "rod" somehow refers to Houteff's interpretations and place him on par as the scriptures.

No one is “pusing aside” EGW. Our subject is the pre-mil kingdom and the very first quote you use to deny that was a taken out of context EGW quote. As far as the “rod” we'll get to that at end of this response.

Ded- On another thread you placed him as the sole authority on interpreting scripture --

False. That thread was based on Zech. 4 , of which obviously you failed to grasp its meaning. Those such as Dedication , being stuck on “milk” of the word, can in no way see the “meat”, the deeper things of the Lord.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.” (Isaiah 28:9)



Originally Posted By: GLL
One is to be prominent(Bible) and the other is to secondarily support it (EGW).NOT the Bible is to support EGW. This is very important to firmly get into our mind for understanding CORRECTLY God's WORD.”

Ded- So why are all your posts HOUTEFF's interpretation of the Bible?

First, not “all” my posts are VTH. Second, you obviously deny that the Lord would send a “male prophet” to His people (SDA church) right before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. I shall NOT deny that and post what I and many others believe are the words of that prophet. If you don't believe it—that's your problem. The Lord shall do as His word says—And all we can say is--Amen!

Originally Posted By: GLL
Instead of waiting to see what God's words says FIRST. The Jews did this SAME procedure! They quoted and believed in Moses first ahead of anything Christ said.

Ded-Ah-- yes -- and Houteff is following the same procedure as the Jews, quoting the prophets who wrote more than six centuries before Christ, and not basing it on what the NEW Testament says.

False. Houteff wrote quite alot on NT.Again, as we went over this before , you admitted that you have not read much of the Rod. Clearly that is evident by your comments and false interpretations of the Rod.


Ded-Both prove she was NOT speaking of the Zionist movement, or about a call to Jewish people to go to Jerusalem, but rather she is talking about the aims of some of the ADVENTIST people who thought they needed to go over to Jerusalem, convert the Jews living there and establish something. And knowing the missionary mindedness of Adventists they were not against sending missionaries either, so it couldn't be that either.

GSL-- Regardless of our different interpretations of EW p. 75, the SCRIPTURES are what we will search out first and foremeost. As far as “Houteff” teaching that the Advent people “must” go to Jerusalem. Let's see what the word of God says about that–which is quoted by Houteff through out his reports.

Ded-James White wrote in the Review Oct. 7, 1851 addressing the same situation EGW was addressing;
He wrote while reporting on a meeting of the brethren:

"The Holy Spirit was gloriously poured out, and all were blest, strengthened, and cheered on their way to the Golden City, the Heavenly Jerusalem. The distracting, unprofitable views relative to Old Jerusalem and the Jews, &c., that are afloat at the present time, were not mentioned during the meeting.
No one present, to our knowledge, has anything to do with
them. The Jerusalem "above" and "free," is that which
interests us. On that we dwell with pleasure, unity of sentiments, and profit. " Blessed," says the True Witness,
Jesus, " are they that do his (the Father's ten commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the City." Rev, xxii, 14.
We wish here to state that we as a people have no confidence
in the strange notions, that some have run into, that
the saints have yet to go to Old Jerusalem, &c., &c. Brethren beware of such heresies."

This is supporting EGW, and we see that she was against the people going to Jerusalem to convert the Jews. Regardless, Scripture is first and foremost explanation of our topic and nothing is going to change that.

[b]ADDRESSING KINGDOM ISSUES

Originally Posted By: GLL
At this point we'd like to point out something important--Please take notice-- She conveniently ignores Truth that she cannot escape from. Notice she made no attempt to address the following--

Ded-Indeed I started to answer, but put it aside to enjoy the Sabbath day in worship and fellowship with other believers.

Also notice the shift GLL takes in his response to my first statement:
Originally Posted By: GLL
Originally Posted By: dedication
"Revelation makes it plain that the nations of the world will not be flocking to Jerusalem to find the truth.
It makes it plain they will be following the beast and His image."

There was no “shift” lol. I saw your comment. The point of the report is to establish the kingdom with both the OT and yes, Revelation where it does make mention of the kingdom in Israel. Patience.

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Ded- Did he negate what I said, that REVELATION makes it plain that the nations of the world will not be flocking to old Jerusalem to find the truth?
That Revelation makes it plain they will be following the beast and His image.

Yes Revelation speaks much of the beast(s) but we'll see if Rev. mentions the kingdom in Israel.

Let's keep in mind this very important promise by Inspiration--

"That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, the chosen nation, He will finally accomplish through His church on earth today." (Prophets and Kings, p.713)

Meaning that each and every promise that was not conditional--to Israel-- will be accomplished by His CHURCH today (shortly).

Ded- He wasn't quoting from Revelation, he is quoting from Isaiah who wrote before the first destruction of Jerusalem and was presenting what God wanted Jerusalem to be when the Messiah came to them.

A conditional promise? Let's look again at that reference.

Ded-The words last days = don’t necessarily mean our time, they simply mean “last days”.

Hebrews 1:1,2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.

Ded-So it can also refer to the “last days” of a period of time -- like the allotted 490 years given to the nation to prepare for the coming Messiah.

This is where you are missing the “context” of what was said-

Notice:
1) The “last days” are in the time where God's people (church) shall be established above ALL OTHER people-churches. And how many nations shall flow to it? ALL. Obviously this is a world wide flowing(verse 2)
2) The people will “go up” to the “house of the God of Jacob.” Meaning they will flock to CHRIST's House-- Where is that?-- ZION. And what is the prupose? God holy law will be taught FROM THERE.Has that happened yet? NO!(verse 3)

So clearly the description of “last days” has to be connected to the REST OF THE TEXT. Dedication wants to strip and separate “last days” from the passage, Something we find her doing time and again.

Ded- Indeed if in the last days of the 490 years, when the Son of God was walking on the dusty roads of Palestine, and confirming the covenant with the Jewish people, had the nation accepted Christ as their Messiah, they would have been a light to the world to all nations.

Nice try with your if and buts. This Isaiah word and promise is definite --not maybe or a we'll see prediction.

Again let's repeat it--

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Now if Dedication was speaking truth, it would say “..mountian of the LORD'S house MAY be established... and all nations MIGHT flow unto it, etc. if her idea that Isaiah's prediction was predicated on the Jews accepting Christ!

See how ridiculous Dedication mocks and distorts God's word? She is, and this is serious before my Lord, placing her private interpretations ABOVE God's direct word! Wow! May God help her!

Ded- But in spite of the national rejection of Christ, the LORD’S word did go forth from Jerusalem to all the world, as the followers of Christ (Jewish men and women) went forth carrying the gospel.

Yes it did, but that is totally different than what God's word says in Isaiah. The people (all nations) did not flock to God's house in Jerusalem in Christ's day (the apostate Jews controlled Jerusalem), rather the law(His word) went out to all nations.The key of this promise being all nations going up to Jerusalem in last days to get the law (word) FROM ZION.

Ded- And the prophecy will be fulfilled again in completeness, when the NEW Jerusalem comes down from heaven, and all the saved nations will go to that great city to worship and learn more about God.

As Revelation points out concerning the NEW Jerusalem --

Quotes--Rev. 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
21:26 "And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it."

Now, let me understand this. You say that Isaiah's prediction will be fulfilled in this “New Jerusalem” time. You mean that when the New Jerusalem comes down there will be existing nations that will come up to Zion? The city descends upon an inhabited world?

Makes no sense at all—Why? Because this obviously cannot be in the “last days” because we read in REV. 21:1 –
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”

The NEW earth is not the LAST DAYS—let's get real! Like I said "pulling rabbits out of hats".


Originally Posted By: GLL
Dedication wants to say this pre-mil idea is Houteff's but we'll see what the 2nd report brings. Honest truth seekers will be “guided into all truth” (John 16:13) if, unlike Dedication, they humble themselves and read the “Thus sayeth the Lord.”

Ded-focus of some kind of righteous kingdom in old Jerusalem prior to God making all things new, is not Houteff's idea -- it's been around long before Houteff came on the scene.

Variations of it were there in EGW's time, it's nothing new. Houteff just tailored it to deceive Adventists.

Again, let's see what Houteff brings to the table, what Scriptures he brings.

Originally Posted By: GLL
I'm afraid your truth and THE TRUTH are two different things. For instance we notice your often taking out of context what the Scriptures, EGW and even myself say. If you will honestly recall I said you bore false witness by implicating Houteff in the 1959 Waco fiasco. I proved to you that VTH was in no way associated with that


Ded-As far as the disastrous results of people who have accepted Houteff's teachings -- you have NOT proved at all that his teachings had nothing to do with it.

let's bring back that thread, and see.. I pointed out that no where in all his writings did he ever write about a certain date that Ezek. 9 would occur. I asked you to provide anything along those lines, you could not.

Ded-I said Florence set the date after V. Houteff died, it was not Houteff who set the date.
And you can only prove that Florence set the date, not Houteff, which I said from the beginning.
There is absolutely no false witness there.

Bring back that thread and we;ll show how you clearly implied it was VTH's doing that cause the 1959 fiasco.

Ded-you weren't there when Houteff and his wife discussed prophecies together. It's only your word against others who were there.

Yes, there were others there and even a living witness to those who were there and heard what was said on the supposed talk the night before VTH died, cleared him. Even Florence gave a true account in the Codes about what transpired that night. Again saying VTH mentioned no dates.But this is secondary, all one has to do is go to his writings and ,as mentioned, not one written statement points to any date for Ezek. 9 fulfillment in those days (late 50's)


Ded-You have chosen to slander Florence to vindicate V.Houteff, that's your problem, not mine.

Slandered her? Give clear evidence.


Ded-At least she saw the light of the errors into which she was indoctrinated and realized where those beliefs were leading her.

LOL, You go from bad to worse. Right here with this statement you show how little you really now about Flornence, Victor, or the message. You have what is called a perfect—TRIFECTA.

Florence Houteff was a deluded person, infact she went practically apostate after HER failed prediction that caused the 1959 fiasco. She declared that Ellen White was a false prophet, even denied her husband and said only apostle Paul's writings were true! There are witnesses that attest to this (some still living).

Learn some history before you speak and deceive the people, ok?

Also, you showed you keep good records by pulling up that thread where I said Houteff was the “sole” interpreter of Scriptures, why don't you pull up the thread where we discussed what we said about this (Florence and the 1959 fiasco). Then we'll see the real deal, ok?


Originally Posted By: GLL
Ded-So they are looking for a "human" king to rule visibly, while they say Christ rules "invisible" -- basically they are aiming to set up a theocratic type of kingdom in which a human will rule. NOTE: that is uniting church and state!

Follow this carefully-- The Word of GOD declares that a future kingdom , and that is a RELIGIOUS one not a WORLDLY one as we know it, is to be set up in Israel. But it does NOT, I repeat NOT join up with any local or country government. But we are getting ahead of the report, so let's see what it says.


Ded-It matters not that it isn't joining a local government. Their aim is to set up a KINGDOM in which rulership and religion is merged.

Ok, let's use Dedications logic here. So in king David's and Solomon's time where rulership and religion was formed together, was that a uniting of “church-state” ? Or was that what is known as a pure “Theocracy”?


Ded- They don't plan on joining a local government they plan to BE the local government. What do you think a kingdom and a king does? A king that rules on throne.

The word “government” is not exclusive to a heathen rulership. Governments can exist such as Saul, David, and Solomon's time. No heathen connection at all. You are limiting the word government.


Originally Posted By: GGL
You are trying to discuss two areas of this subject at once 1) the identity of the future king to be set up in Israel 2) whether there will be a Theocracy in Israel in the end times.

Ded- It is one and the same subject.

Like I said , there are different aspects here, and I will show the kingdom first , then we can talk about the “king”.

Houteff plainly says the antypical David is not Christ, that he is the visible king, while Christ is the invisible king and that this is a theocracy.


Originally Posted By: GLL
Our report is focusing on number 2 for now, let's prove that case first then we can discuss “who” if any is identified as the ruler.

Ded-You are following the counsel that other Shepherd Rod people were given.
They KNOW there is a problem with this set up that just does NOT mesh with truth, so the idea is -- first indoctrinate the people on the kingdom idea, then introduce this king to them.

False. We know what is truth and the Scriptures do not lie. It is you who shall prove false and confused. i personally do not 'follow" anyone or thing but the TRUTH, and Christ is the TRUTH through His word.

Ded-And indeed Satan will set up a counterfeit kingdom -- it's a whole study in itself.

Listen, I am not asking to see a 'whole study”, just give us a quote that says Satan will set up a kingdom in Israel in the last days. People are not stupid Dedication, you made a ridiculous claim. Do not run and hide, simply show it or admit you don't have one.

Lastly, you ignored the Rod quote and question. Are you going to tell us what "you" think it means? The one who thinks she knows the Rod and the history.

"Hear ye the Rod and Who has appointed it?"(Micah 6:9)

The Rod not only is to be heard but it feeds us as well--

"Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old." (Micah 7;14)

Now you have two inspired Rod references that the LORD said we are to hear and feed on. And no, Victor Houteff did not write these quotes in Bible, God did!

Maybe we are to get a rod like Moses had and sit down and listen to it then when we are hungry take a bit out of it and eat it.

Interesting how you like to accuse others of "bearing false witness" when you do so yourself.

You said I gave no reference when I showed Houteff's presentation of the tree where the antitypical David who is to be king was said not to be Christ -- when there was reference -- tract and page number. (Tract #8) Taken right from his writings!!!! And yes, I read the whole tract!
When I pointed out my reference -- no apology only more attacks against me as a person.

Now you falsely say:
I admitted that I have not read much of the Rod.

When did I admit that? I said I had read quite a lot of Houteff's writings and even gave titles of his pamphlets. It was you that twisted that into saying I hadn't read much!!!
I think it's because I HAVE read much of his messages and see error in them that you must now attack me as a person.

The case of Florence is a sad one indeed.
First off she was very young and impressionable when she married a self proclaimed prophet. She was 18, I believe, while V. Houteff was 50. From all reports she fully supported and followed her husband throughout their 20 years or so of married life. When he died, her concern was to keep the movement going. Some criticize her for calling the leading people together to discuss what to do next too soon after Houteff's death, but I'm sure she was most worried about the movement, because she fully believed in it and wanted it to stay on track.

Yes, as time continued and she was forced to match the teachings with scripture herself, she saw the light in the error of Houteff's writings, yet so often when a person who has basically given their life to a cause, then sees they were deluded, they end up giving up everything.
Houteff weaves EGW in and out of his writings in a most out of context manner, that when a Houteff believer is convinced of Houteff's errors, and they see the contradictions between Houteff and EGW they may well end up throwing out the whole package.